Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
You are correct about GW putting no effort into game balance. Whatever the reasons may be they very clearly do not consider balance or rule quality to be important.

You are wrong about previous editions being balanced. There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.

You are wrong about FW rules having anything to do with game balance. They never did, and including them by default did nothing besides remove a stupid division between one set of books published by GW and a different set of books published by GW.

This is basically what I was going to type.

The problem isn't FW or anything, it's just that the rules aren't balanced in a way that things can be approximately even for the sake of a game.

Historical games are often lopsided, this is true, but most of the more recent historical games also have points to be able to do an even matchup if you aren't doing a refight, and historical games by their nature requires discussion and planning of what battle you want to do and the like.

40k doesn't encourage anything, which is part of the problem. It's fine to do a lopsided game but you need to decide a custom scenario for it instead of just using the stuff in the book, but there are no real guidelines for that either. That's what I think they are missing. If 40k is meant to be casual and laid back, then they need to have a book that shows how to play it in that way so people have a reference for making their own scenarios or linked narratives.

 Peregrine wrote:
There have always been major balance issues and complaints that GW doesn't do enough to fix them.

That's definitely true, and I think it was forgiven more in the past because game design in the 80's and 90's was less sophisticated and so almost every game you played had significant balance issues (that applies broadly to things like Board Games, Tabletop RPG's, and Video Games). The last 30 years have been a real flourishing in the industry not just in terms of growth, but also in terms of advancing the art of good game design. GW has also advanced in that time... in the business of modeling (compare rogue-trader era models to modern stuff). In terms of game design, not so much.

Don't you know that 40K is a "beer and pretzels" game? Funny how the GW game "designers'" definition of what that means is wide off the mark of what most people would think.

GW is a games company that makes a successful profitable game who's sales currently eclipse that of probably all its competitors combined. If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it? Yes you have people online constantly lamenting the poor rules quality but you have thousands of customers that continue to buy the product. They are probably sitting there reviewing the sales for 7th edition and thinking this thing is still selling well.

Expecting a publicly listed company that continues to make a profit to change its operation is sadly gonna lead to more an more frustration. By all means stop buying and look at other game systems where you CAN find your fun. GW will only change when their profits fall close to break even. Until that happens nothing will change.

I'm not an apologist for them and I can see the flaws of 40k but I still love the game warts and all and i'll continue until I stop having fun.

 Nithaniel wrote:
GW is a games company that makes a successful profitable game who's sales currently eclipse that of probably all its competitors combined. If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it? Yes you have people online constantly lamenting the poor rules quality but you have thousands of customers that continue to buy the product. They are probably sitting there reviewing the sales for 7th edition and thinking this thing is still selling well.

Expecting a publicly listed company that continues to make a profit to change its operation is sadly gonna lead to more an more frustration. By all means stop buying and look at other game systems where you CAN find your fun. GW will only change when their profits fall close to break even. Until that happens nothing will change.

I'm not an apologist for them and I can see the flaws of 40k but I still love the game warts and all and i'll continue until I stop having fun.

Have you actually read the income reports? They're only making a profit because they've cut the corporate structure to the bone....or did you think that the move to one-man stores were just because they had too much money laying around and it made sense?

Don't get me wrong. I make fund of GW a great deal, because it's easy and they keep making it easier, but I've owned stock at various points. On paper, they're a great investment but that's mainly due to the fact that they will pay a dividend at all costs.

Kirby's one redeeming quality is that he is able to find a way to keep the company in the black as it circles the drain. He makes terrible decisions at a corporate level and even on a moral level (hiring his wife, with zero experience, to head up the website redesign) and he completely fails to see how the company could make a profit AND a great product but he knows how to min/max the revenue sheets.

 Nithaniel wrote:
If you had a company that continued to make a profit massive profits why would you change it?

Because there is always room for improvement, and in GW's case, making a better balanced, more cogent ruleset would only help them.

Further, recently they've been making less money. While its still a lot, a downward trend should always be avoided.

Yeah it's not a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', it's more 'it's broken but we cba to fix it, just stick some tape over it'.

The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.

It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.

FW is no more or less balanced than what's in standard GW books. For every FW you can point out and yell 'OP!', there's at least another in a GW book. Same goes for the terrible, underwhelming units.

FW at least has the sensibility to release units in experimental rules first and often tone them down. How and where they get feedback from, I'm not sure, but its a small step up from GW.

Plus, basic common sense that 30k has in army list construction is entirely gone from 40k. Percentage restriction on LoW, no Unbound, variety in FOCs, and slot manipulation all point towards FW having a better understanding of game design and balance.

*Edit* fething Geek.

14secs.

Mwahaha. Yours was a better answer though.

But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.

This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?

 Toofast wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.

Drop pod spam and scatter bike spam dominate maelstrom. I play both armies and can count my maelstrom losses on 1 hand with them.

Play me. I'll wipe up your pods. Scatter bikes, though, are a problems.

Martel732 wrote:
Play me. I'll wipe up your pods. Scatter bikes, though, are a problems.

Actually, funny you should say that. I got beat bad by skitarii in pods last night. Those can be freakin mean.

I have annihilated scatterbike spam and scatterbike + 2 and +3 wraithknights with a smattering of other things with vanilla Marines, and Marines plus assassins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:

Makumba wrote:

GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.

Pretty much this. They sell rules for more than everybody else, why should you pay that much for guidelines when every other company charges less for actual rules?

Obviously, if you don't like the guidelines, you shouldn't buy them.

The problem seems to be that a lot of people just wish GW would be a different company than it is, and won't accept that have never written a miniature game in the format that they want, nor will they likely ever. Anyone who has nostalgia for a GW of yesteryear when things were nicely balanced and the hobby was cheap... well, never was 40k balanced, and it was always an expensive hobby. Yeah, there are more books now, and bigger models, but realistically most people don't buy *every* book anymore.

What is amusing is that there are people who are infuriated by the crowd that doesn't really care that GW products are expensive, or poorly balanced, and still spend exorbitant amounts of money on the hobby and game over other, less expensive, more balanced options, for whatever personal reasons of preference. They just don't understand, "I think that expensive, poorly balanced game is just more fun."

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem to me is that 40k is almost 100% dependent on what your local group is like. The locals around me want to play 1850 point games constantly and pretend that they can play 40k competitively, which is about as full 180 as you can get from how 40k seems to be intended to be played. If they had a small group playing casual, narrative style games, well that might be more tempting to get into because I like that part. But I already play a competitive, well thought out game (Warmachine) that's infinitely better for being a competitive, well thought out game than 40k is or ever was; with the 40k crowd around here there's no reason to frustrate myself by playing 40k in a bad way when I can play a better game in a good way, even if I do like the models and the fluff.

On the first part, we totally agree. 40k is completely dependent on having good people to play with. However, in my opinion, EVERY tabletop / board game requires this. I have a very low tolerance for playing with total strangers these days, because my gaming time is limited, and I'd rather spend it with people I like.

On the competitive end, I disagree. Warmachines, 40k, and chess, and checkers have one thing in common: some people are just smarter than other people and more clever. They're just better players. The problem is, in a small pool of players, if you're really clever, even if everything is balanced, the game sucks competitively, because you'll always win. If you're on the other end of the spectrum, you'll always lose. And neither is very fun. Not only is there no matchmaking, but your competitive pool is so small that finding someone of equal skill and experience as you is not easy. The only way to balance against skill is to increase the level of chance, and that isn't a great direction for a strategy game.

I find my fun play wargames more as planned scenarios -- with a nonrandom objective as you would in real life -- and also adjusting each game for the skill level and army list of my opponent. I neither wish to win nor lose 10 games in a row.

WayneTheGame wrote:
People constantly ignore the fact that good, solid rules benefits everybody. The casual/narrative/fluffbunny players aren't unduly punished for liking X unit instead of Y unit. The powergamer/competitive/WAAC players don't have such a free reign to break the game. Everybody wins. Yet for some reason people seem to think that because 40k is bad for competitive play, it must be good for casual play as if it's a black and white situation. It's not. Games can (and should) be both, but focusing (as far as the level of detail and clarity) on the competitive game for the rules ensures that the rules are tight and well-written, which in turn benefits the casual group as well.

Indeed, better balance would benefit everyone. But a balanced game doesn't equal a fair game, and in Warmachines, you also can't just play the models you happen to like, though -- like Codex Craftworlds -- most everything can be used somewhere (in combination with the right other models), and you can still remain competitive.

I don't think 7e suffers from a lack of clarity. The rules that are ambiguous that haven't been FAQ'd are very few now.

It really affects the hypercompetitive types much more though. The casual group, or more accurately, the group that finds its fun in things other than just winning, really **doesn't care** one way or the other. When one person says, no, this rule works this way, the other person is most likely to just say, "Oh, okay." and move on. It truly doesn't matter who is right.

 wuestenfux wrote:

But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.

This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?

I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.

Oh... also their FAQ.

Incidentally, I have found -- whether in the 90s or now -- 40k was most enjoyed by people with copious amounts of time and money.

There were about 10 -15 years in my life where 40k really took a back seat because I simply didn't have the time to model what I wanted to play, and I always felt like I wasn't giving models my best effort, because I was in a rush to get them done (to play).

The game is a lot more fun when, within at least 2-3 factions, you can field whatever you feel like, and adding to the army is just another vehicle or squad. And, when a new faction is not a rush to get out onto the table because you have other things you can play and try. The codex nerf/buff cycle also doesn't hit you as hard, because eventually what is bad will become good again.

For a really long time, I have modeled 90% because I like the models and 10% for effectiveness, and from a hobby perspective, that is infinitely more satisfying, but it is pretty hard to make that work unless you have gobs of time.

I guess what I'm saying is that 40k doesn't make a very good casual or occasional hobby.

Noir wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.

This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?

I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.

Oh... also their FAQ.

But are the core rules the source of the perceived balance issues or are the individual codex rules the problem?

Up until Necrons, people were saying that we were seeing a shift in how GW writes rules, as the 7th edition codexes had been pretty nicely balanced against each other and internally. Then came Necrons, which threw that notion away, but after that, we had Khorne Daemonkin and Skittari, both relatively balanced externally and internally. Finally, we got hit over the head with the OP nonsense that is Codex: Craftworld Eldar. I've not read the new IK codex, but given that Knights are pretty expensive AV units, I'd imagine that they are no more or less balanced than the 6th edition version (which most people tended to think wasn't really bad at all).

Codex creep has been a problem since 2nd edition and is usually the source of complaints. I doubt it will ever go away, but it normally boils down to a few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel. For whatever reason, some armies get a shine from the writers and it throws the game into turmoil.

I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse

Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.

 Accolade wrote:
I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse

Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.

Agreed, but I'd also throw in competition.
Before, competition was few and of lesser quality. Now the other games out there are amazing and show what good rules writing can be. It's not a monopoly anymore.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

Noir wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

But it does seem to me that GW no longer accepts responsibility for balancing the game.

This is a true misconception.
What are the reasons behind?

I would guess GW rules would be the reason. Don't need to look any harder then that.

Oh... also their FAQ.

But are the core rules the source of the perceived balance issues or are the individual codex rules the problem?

Up until Necrons, people were saying that we were seeing a shift in how GW writes rules, as the 7th edition codexes had been pretty nicely balanced against each other and internally. Then came Necrons, which threw that notion away, but after that, we had Khorne Daemonkin and Skittari, both relatively balanced externally and internally. Finally, we got hit over the head with the OP nonsense that is Codex: Craftworld Eldar. I've not read the new IK codex, but given that Knights are pretty expensive AV units, I'd imagine that they are no more or less balanced than the 6th edition version (which most people tended to think wasn't really bad at all).

Codex creep has been a problem since 2nd edition and is usually the source of complaints. I doubt it will ever go away, but it normally boils down to a few rotten apples spoiling the whole barrel. For whatever reason, some armies get a shine from the writers and it throws the game into turmoil.

If you mean the main rule book, no it not balanced.

If you mean the core of move, shoot, assault, then yes it can be balanced. GW even shown they can make good fun seni-balanced rules using it. They just don't try anymore to do that. Oh, and up until Necron GW was not making a codex that auto-smacked the other codex, if you look at the units in the codex you know there is no real balance between the units. Or point cost would make since.

I reject the premise of this thread.

In order to abdicate responsibility for balance, GW would have had to have assumed responsibility for it in the first place.

I believe "abandon all pretense at maintaining balance" would probably be more accurate at this point.

MWHistorian wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I think it's really the cost of rules that have become the greatest problem. With higher costs comes higher and higher expectations. It can be argued that GW's miniatures have kept pace with value, but the rules certainly have not. IMO, that is why rule complaints have continued to worsen, even as some of the books have been more measured in their balance within the game. ON top of that, having releases where the armies are really unbalanced (i.e. Necrons and Eldar) upsets things that much worse

Then you have the high rate of rules recycling, coupled with the fact that new rules aren't done to actually improve the books, and there is very little to be had by buying these $50 books. It's a waste of money even if you spend your free time driving a Tesla and throwing money at pet charity projects.

Agreed, but I'd also throw in competition.
Before, competition was few and of lesser quality. Now the other games out there are amazing and show what good rules writing can be. It's not a monopoly anymore.

This is certainly true. I know years ago I wouldn't even consider a wargame that wasn't 40k. Now I realize just how many options there are out there, and how many options GW has gotten rid of with the goal of selling Apocalypse 40k.

Azreal13 wrote:I reject the premise of this thread.

In order to abdicate responsibility for balance, GW would have had to have assumed responsibility for it in the first place.

I believe "abandon all pretense at maintaining balance" would probably be more accurate at this point.

I think 3rd-5th GW had a pretense of balance because armies were still single entities, and they had to make them decent enough or risk losing sales of the whole faction. Now everything is just an ally, so GW could care less if the individual books work because it's all about maximizing sales for the one super-army.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.

It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.

If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.

 Accolade wrote:

I think 3rd-5th GW had a pretense of balance because armies were still single entities, and they had to make them decent enough or risk losing sales of the whole faction. Now everything is just an ally, so GW could care less if the individual books work because it's all about maximizing sales for the one super-army.

Sorry, but this is the line of thinking just makes me shake my head. It's like people have drawn a total memory blank on things like razorback spam and Grey Knights. 3e-5e or 6e was NOT more balanced or clear. Maybe players were less extreme in a local scene. Maybe during 3e, there was less "look on the internet for an optimal build to show your friends how superior you are" -- but the rules were definitely more ambiguous, and the game had just as much imbalance (more!!!) as it has today.

40k has ALWAYS been about building a super-army and/or collecting a crap ton of toy soldiers, and showcasing it to your buddies by playing out some futuristic (laughably improbable) battle. But I mean, who didn't know that going in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The thing I think is most funny - is people that have thousands of dollars of FW always seem to think FW is balanced. It's always been codex plus 1 and always had better options than what you can field in codex. This might be the first time in history with new eldar that FW is actually outclassed by a codex unit in the WK. Just wait until the FW WK start coming out. lol.

It's not been that way at all. There's some strong FW stuff sure. But there's also a lot of crap. Basically the same as GW stuff, it's all over the place. FW is just as balanced as GW is.

If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.

It depends if you're talking about FW 40k or 30k. I have never played 30k, mostly because the aesthetic is not really my thing and my playgroup isn't much interested, but I constantly hear good things about it. Keep in mind, it's about even bigger armies, though, more money for rules, and much more expensive models.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.

And those balance issues apply equally regardless of which book GW published the rules in.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
If you ignore the junk in both GW and FW and only focus on the strong units you see the balance issues much better.

And those balance issues apply equally regardless of which book GW published the rules in.

FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.

 jasper76 wrote:
FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.

This is not true at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.

This is not true at all.

Nah, the ally rules do that function just fine.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
FW units seem designed to plug weaknesses in the corresponding army's regular 40k codex. Like, your army is no good at this? No worries! Here's a FW unit to plug that hole.

This is not true at all.

Except the Sicarn Battle Tank -- which should be a standard plastic kit dammit. And the Knight Castigator (before we had the new kit with skyfire)